ORDER : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioners, who are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.2/2021 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge(Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram, arising out of Crime No.7 of 2016 of VACB, Kollam, seeking quashment of Annexures 1 to 4 and the further proceedings thereon in the above case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the prosecution records. 3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act’ for short hereafter) as well as Sections 409 , 420 r/w 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (`IPC’ for short), by the accused. The prosecution allegation as per the final report reads as under: “A1, former Officer in Charge of Sub Depot Main, Kollam and A2, former Godown Asst. of Sub Depot main Kollam who were the employees of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Kollam Sub Depot during the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 had misappropriated the property and money belonging to the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation and also cheated the Civil Supplies, Corporation for ulterior and illegal pecuniary gain for them and thereby caused a huge loss to the Supply Co, for an amount of Rs. 5,95,844.82/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety five thousand eight hundred and forty four and eighty two paise only). 1 st and 2 nd accused gained excess stock of commodities by not issuing the rationed articles for public distribution and shortage of varieties of some commodities of rationed articles are due to the unauthorised sale by diverting the issue for public distribution system. The 1 st and 2 nd accused thereby committed misappropriation of rationed articles for public distribution and it is punishable U/S 13(2) r/w13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Sec.409,420 & 34 of IPC.” 4. While canvassing quashment of Annexures 1 to 4 and the further proceedings in the above case, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Civil Supplies Police and Vigilance have no consistency with regard to the allegation of the petitioners. In this connection, it is pointed out that as per Annexure 1, the quantified liability would come to Rs.14,68,695.89. In this connection, it is pointed out that as per Annexure 1, the quantified liability would come to Rs.14,68,695.89. As per Annexure 2 FIR also, the liability would come to Rs.14,68,695.89. In Annexure 3, the allegation is that by misusing their position, the accused caused a loss of Rs.14,68,695.89. But when Annexure 4 final report had been filed, the amount of misappropriation was found to be Rs.5,95,844.82 during the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no materials were collected to show misappropriation of the said amount, as alleged in the final report. It is submitted that as per the document form part of the final report, nothing available to find commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC as well as the other offences. In Annexure 6 inspection report, no independent witness is cited and the statement of witness No.14, who is the District Supply Officer and who conducted inspection on 20.03.2013, and therefore no evidence could be gathered from the same. The other allegation is that, in the procedure prescribed in paragraph 13 of this Crl.M.C, the provisions 7.01(2) and 7.01(5) contained in Chapter VII of Kerala Civil Supplies Manual, 1978 , are to be followed for verification of stock in view of the decision of this Court reported in [ AIR 1999 KER 119 ], N.Sarojini v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram & Ors. which read as under: “13. The provision 7.01 (2) contained in Chapter VII of the Kerala Civil Supplies Manual, 1978 is as under: The actual stock on hand at the time of inspection should be assessed by physical weighment. It is found that sometimes the inspecting officers have assessed the stock in hand by weighing a few bags picked at random and working out the average. The weight of the total stock appears to have been calculated in certain cases on the basis of the average weight. It is needless to say that the quantities calculated by above method cannot be accepted under law if the dealer challenges the accuracy of the stock balance determined in the above manner. It is, therefore most essential that the stock is assessed by cent per cent weighment. There is no other acceptable method. It is needless to say that the quantities calculated by above method cannot be accepted under law if the dealer challenges the accuracy of the stock balance determined in the above manner. It is, therefore most essential that the stock is assessed by cent per cent weighment. There is no other acceptable method. In the instant case, cent per cent weighment of the stock in the Sub Depot was not done as is evident from the statement of witness no.14, the Deputy Controller of Rationing who headed the inspection held on 20.3.2013. As such, no sanctity can be given to the finding of excess/shortage in the stock. What 7.01(5) of the said manual provides is as under: In addition to noting the details of the variation in stock in the connected records as pointed out above, a mahazar should be prepared showing the difference in the stock, which should be got signed by the licensee or his representative present in the shop and by two independent witnesses..” 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there was no excess or shortage in the stock kept at the Sub Depot as found by the vigilance on 20.03.2013, and therefore, the entire prosecution is unwarranted and the same would require quashment. 6. While opposing quashment, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the entire allegations raised by the petitioners to quash the proceedings are baseless. In this connection, the learned counsel gave emphasis to paragraph Nos.2, 4 to 9 of the statement filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Kollam, which appear to be relevant. The same are extracted as under: “2. It is submitted that the matrix of the case is as briefed: That on 27.11.2014, the Kollam East Police Station registered Cr. No. 2413/14 against the petitioners (A1 & A2) for offences under sections 409, 420 & 34 IPC, pursuant to a complaint lodged by Sri. R. Ashokan, Assistant Manager of Kollam District Depot of Supplyco (Annexures 1 & 2). The complaint alleged that while the 1 st petitioner served as the officer in charge and the 2 nd petitioner as a Godown Assistant at the Sub Depot (Main), Kollam of the Civil Supplies Corporation, an inspection on 20.3.2013 conducted by Sri. T.P. Kammad Kutty (W-14), Rationing Deputy Controller, and Sri. The complaint alleged that while the 1 st petitioner served as the officer in charge and the 2 nd petitioner as a Godown Assistant at the Sub Depot (Main), Kollam of the Civil Supplies Corporation, an inspection on 20.3.2013 conducted by Sri. T.P. Kammad Kutty (W-14), Rationing Deputy Controller, and Sri. K. Unnikrishnan (W-13), District Supply Officer, Kollam, unearthed irregularities: an excess of 192.90 quintals of boiled rice, a shortage of 12.32 quintals of raw rice, an excess of 49.80 quintals of wheat, and a failure to exhibit the stock board, alleging a misappropriation amounting to 14,68,695.89. Consequently, both petitioners were suspended on 23.3.2013. 3. xxxx 4. All the contentions of the petitioners (A1&A2) in the petition, except those which are specifically admitted or otherwise dealt with here under, are baseless and hence denied. The prosecution case, as detailed in paragraphs 1 to 7 of the petition by the petitioner(s), is true and therefore admitted. 5. It is submitted that the petitioners (A1 & A2) asserted the stock verification conducted as part of a surprise inspection by the Deputy Controller of Rationing (W-14) & District Supply Officer (W- 13) on 20.03.2013 at Supplyco Sub Depot (Main) Kollam was fundamentally flawed, as it failed to adhere to the cent-per-cent weighment procedure stipulated in the Kerala Civil Supplies Manual, rendering the findings of excess and shortage of stock unreliable. Furthermore, they contended that no mahazar was prepared, nor were any independent witnesses present during the inspection, thus undermining the credibility of the findings. 6. The allegation is addressed by underscoring that a surprise inspection conducted on 20.03.2013 by the Deputy Controller of Rationing (W-14) and District Supply Officer (W-13), along with senior officials (W-9, W-10, W-11), in the presence of the petitioners (A1 &A2), disclosed significant stock discrepancies. These irregularities were corroborated through meticulous physical balance calculations based on bag counts and measurements, and were thoroughly documented. The accused signed the inspection report [R- 25], confirming their acknowledgment of the discrepancies without lodging any objections, thus indicating their acceptance of the findings. Although a formal mahazar was not prepared, the inspection report [R-25] served as an official record of the stock verification. This report, signed by the accused, was further corroborated by an audit conducted by Smt. Saramma Mathew (W-2) and Vijaya Krishnan (W-4), which confirmed the irregularities. Although a formal mahazar was not prepared, the inspection report [R-25] served as an official record of the stock verification. This report, signed by the accused, was further corroborated by an audit conducted by Smt. Saramma Mathew (W-2) and Vijaya Krishnan (W-4), which confirmed the irregularities. Proper reconciliation procedures [R-26] were followed, and the discrepancies were substantiated in subsequent audits, thereby validating the accuracy and reliability of the inspection findings. 7. It is submitted that the petitioners contend that the discrepancies identified during the inspection and subsequent audit were unsustainable and unwarranted. They assert that there is no evidence of misappropriation of money or property, but only evidence of stock discrepancies. The petitioners further allege that the findings lack consistency, undermining the applicability of Section 409 IPC. Additionally, they argue that Section 420 IPC is inapplicable due to the absence of intent to deceive. Moreover, they emphasize that the vigilance has not provided any evidence of misappropriation of money and property of Supplyco by the petitioners. Instead, the evidence presented pertains to the excess and shortage of certain commodities in the Sub Depot. The petitioners highlight the inconsistency in the quantity of such excess/shortage, with different figures emerging during the inspection on 20.3.2013 and subsequent audit procedures. Consequently, they argue that the offence under Section 409 IPC cannot be sustained against them. 8. In response to the above averment, it is respectfully submitted that the discrepancies identified during the inspection on 20.03.13, and validated through the audit process, are well- documented and substantiated by multiple pieces of evidence. The inspection revealed 192.90 quintals of boiled rice (19,290 kg) and 49.80 quintals of wheat (4,980 kg) as excess stock, along with a shortage of 12.32 quintals of raw rice (1,232 kg). These findings were corroborated by the Internal Audit Wing, which quantified financial misappropriation at Rs.14,68,695.89 based on economic rates i.e. Rs.21.40/- per Kg for rice and Rs.15.15/- per Kg for wheat. The figure of Rs.5,95,844.82, determined using the wholesale issue price, reflects discrepancies as per the internal audit report (R-4) dated 14.06.2013 by (W-2). The audit report [R-4] of Smt. Saramma Mathew (W-2) concludes by remarking that "as an AWD (Authorised Wholesale Depot), the staff are liable to remit the cost of excess and shortage. Sri. Padmakumar, Senior Assistant, and Sri. The figure of Rs.5,95,844.82, determined using the wholesale issue price, reflects discrepancies as per the internal audit report (R-4) dated 14.06.2013 by (W-2). The audit report [R-4] of Smt. Saramma Mathew (W-2) concludes by remarking that "as an AWD (Authorised Wholesale Depot), the staff are liable to remit the cost of excess and shortage. Sri. Padmakumar, Senior Assistant, and Sri. Mukundan Pillai, Junior Assistant, are the officials who worked during the period and are equally responsible for this liability." The wholesale issue price of APL rice and wheat was used to calculate the liability value. Evidence such as (Inspection Report [R-25]) and Stock Registers [R-20], along with testimonies from Sri. T.P. Kammad Kutty (W-14) and Smt. Saramma Mathew (W-2), confirm the petitioners' direct involvement in unauthorized stock movements. 9. It is humbly submitted that the evidence corroborates the shortages noted in R-20 (Stock Registers) point to a breach of trust, justifying charges under Section 409 IPC. The findings are consistent and supported by evidences. The refinement of figures from Rs.14,68,695.89 (economic rate) to Rs.5,95,844.82 (whole sale issue price) i.e Rs.8.63/- per bag for rice and Rs.6.44/- per Kg for wheat reflects an effort to exclude procedural ambiguities and focus on provable misappropriation. Witness Sri. J. Dileep Kumar (W10) testified that the petitioners failed to reconcile unverified stock movements, which constitutes a breach of trust justifying the invocation of Section 409 IPC.” 7. While appraising the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, it is relevant to note that the learned counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on Annexure 8 judgment, which referred to Chapter VII para 7.01(2) and 7.01(5) of the Kerala Civil Supplies Manual, 1978 and held that those paras are to be followed for verification of stock. In this matter, there was a stock inspection on 20.03.2013 by the District Supply Officer and the inspection revealed that 192.90 quintal of raw rice (19.290 kg.) and 49.80 quintal of wheat (4.980 kg.) as excess stock along with a shortage of 12.32 quintal of raw rice (1.232kg.) and the same was supported by the internal audit wing which quantified the financial misappropriation as alleged by the prosecution, which quantified financial misappropriation at Rs.14,68,695.89 based on economic rates i.e. Rs.21.40 per Kg for rice and Rs.15.15 per Kg for wheat. The figure of Rs.5,95,844.82 determined using the wholesale issue price, reflects discrepancies as per the internal audit report (R-4) dated 14.06.2013 by (W-2). The audit report [R-4] of Smt. Saramma Mathew (W-2) concludes by remarking that "as an AWD (Authorised Wholesale Depot), the staff are liable to remit the cost of excess and shortage. Sri. Padmakumar, Senior Assistant, and Sri. Mukundan Pillai, Junior Assistant, are the officials who worked during the period and are equally responsible for this liability." The wholesale issue price of APL rice and wheat was used to calculate the liability value. Evidence such as (Inspection Report [R-25]) and Stock Registers [R-20], along with testimonies from Sri. T.P. Kammad Kutty (W-14) and Smt. Saramma Mathew (W-2), confirm the petitioners' direct involvement in unauthorized stock movements. 8. It is further evident that the shortages noted in R-20 (stock registers) point to a breach of trust justifying charges under Section 409 of IPC. The findings are consistent and supported by evidences. The refinement of figures from Rs.14,68,695.89 (economic rate) to Rs.5,95,844.82 (whole sale issue price) i.e Rs.8.63/- per bag for rice and Rs.6.44/- per Kg for wheat reflects an effort to exclude procedural ambiguities and focus on provable misappropriation. Witness Sri. J. Dileep Kumar (W10) testified that the petitioners failed to reconcile unverified stock movements, which constitutes a breach of trust justifying the invocation of Section 409 IPC. 9. Regarding commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC, the prosecution allegation is that the petitioners, through intentional misrepresentation and manipulation of stock records, dishonestly diverted rationed goods intended for the Public Distribution System (PDS), causing financial loss to Supplyco and securing wrongful gains for themselves. During the inspection on 20.03.2013, discrepancies were identified, including excess stock of 192.90 quintals of boiled rice and 49.80 quintals of wheat, alongside a shortage of 12.32 quintals of raw rice. Winesses, including Sri R.Muraleedharan (W9), former Assistant Taluk Supply Officer Sri J.Dileep Kumar (W10), former Asst.Taluk Supply Officer and testified that the petitioners failed to reconcile delivery records and physical stock, highlighting deliberate attempts to mislead. Furthermore, the petitioners signed the Inspection Report (R-25) acknowledging the discrepancies, which substantiates their malintent. The evidence unequivocally demonstrates that the petitioners induced Supplyco to deliver property under false pretenses, constituting the offense of cheating under Section 420 of IPC. 10. Furthermore, the petitioners signed the Inspection Report (R-25) acknowledging the discrepancies, which substantiates their malintent. The evidence unequivocally demonstrates that the petitioners induced Supplyco to deliver property under false pretenses, constituting the offense of cheating under Section 420 of IPC. 10. In this matter, the main challenge raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is the inconsistency regarding the amount of misappropriation. As per Annexure A1 complaint, Annexure 2 FIR, the misappropriation alleged was Rs.14,68,695.89 for the period between 1.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 and during investigation, the same was quantified by support of materials to show that the misappropriation would come to Rs.5,95,844.82. In fact, the same has no bearing in so far as quashment is concerned since the petitioners are answerable to the charge ultimately framed by the court based on the final report. Regarding compliance of the procedure prescribed in Chapter VII para 7.01(2) and 7.01(5) of the Kerala Civil Supplies Manual, 1978 , the report of the investigating officer at par with the documents would show that the same was substantially complied at the time of stock verification done by the District Supply Officer on 20.03.2013, which was corroborated by the audit wing. Moreover the same is a matter of evidence and cannot be considered at the pre-trial stage. 11. In the instant case, going by the entire prosecution records, it could be gathered that the prosecution allegation as to misappropriation of Rs.5,95,844.82 could be gathered, prima facie, warranting framing of charge and trial of the accused. In such a case, the prayer for quashment of the proceedings for the grounds argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not succeed. In view of the above, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.